Account confirmers, Anti-spam team, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
4,925
edits
GovernanceIssues: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
This is a list of open Mozilla community governance issues. | This is a list of open Mozilla community governance issues. Please add suggestions to the [[GovernanceIssues/Scratchpad|scratchpad]]. | ||
We also have a page listing [http://www.mozilla.org/about/policies/ existing policies]. | We also have a page listing [http://www.mozilla.org/about/policies/ existing policies]. | ||
Most of these issues are being tackled by [[User:Gerv|Gerv]]. | |||
==Open Issues== | ==Open Issues== | ||
=== | ===Disable Dormant SCM Accounts=== | ||
Issue: We have many | Issue: We have many source code management system accounts which are no longer used. This increases our security attack surface. | ||
So Far: We | So Far: We have a [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/73389b3f4c4f5de9 policy], [http://hg.mozilla.org/users/gerv_mozilla.org/active-accounts/ code to generate a list of dormant accounts], and an initial list. | ||
Next Steps: | Next Steps: Waiting on LDAP infrastructure changes. | ||
===Commit Access | ===Harmonize and Simplify Commit Access Policy=== | ||
Issue: Our commit access policies are currently very diverse. We should harmonize them and make them consistent, understandable and easy to implement. | Issue: Our commit access policies are currently very diverse. We should harmonize them and make them consistent, understandable and easy to implement. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
* [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Commit_Policy:Current_Procedures reed's long list of what happens now] | * [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Commit_Policy:Current_Procedures reed's long list of what happens now] | ||
So Far: A [[ | So Far: A [[Commit_Access_Policy|draft]] of a unified policy has gone out for feedback, and received it. | ||
Next Steps: | Next Steps: Final sign-off on policy; waiting for LDAP infrastructure changes. | ||
===Committer's Agreement=== | ===Switch To New Committer's Agreement=== | ||
Issue: Transition to the new agreement by nagging those who have not signed and eventually disabling accounts. | Issue: Transition to the new agreement by nagging those who have not signed and eventually disabling accounts. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
* There is a private Google Docs spreadsheet tracking the progress. | * There is a private Google Docs spreadsheet tracking the progress. | ||
So Far: | So Far: Lots of calls to sign it issued, and most people have responded. Dormat accounts were filtered out of the list, and the remaining small group re-pinged. | ||
Next Steps: | Next Steps: waiting for LDAP infrastructure changes. | ||
===Bug Triage=== | ===Governance Bug Triage=== | ||
Issue: There are numerous open bugs in the Governance component in Bugzilla, which need to be triaged and, where possible, resolved. | Issue: There are numerous open bugs in the Governance component in Bugzilla, which need to be triaged and, where possible, resolved. | ||
| Line 52: | Line 54: | ||
* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/89fa03e13375ae9f dria's summary of the meeting's purpose] | * [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/89fa03e13375ae9f dria's summary of the meeting's purpose] | ||
So Far: Timing has been changed | So Far: Timing has been changed; Ten Forward has been rearranged; Gerv has written [[WeeklyUpdates/Guidance|guidance]]; Jono is the new host and is making many other changes. | ||
Next Steps: Asa has a plan for making technical improvements in the next three months | Next Steps: Asa has a plan for making technical improvements in the next three months (to March). This should give us better lighting, sound and video. | ||
===Non-Code ("Activities") Modules=== | ===Create More Non-Code ("Activities") Modules=== | ||
Issue: Do we need any more Activities modules? Who might own them? We should work out what makes a good module, and who makes a good module owner. Possible examples: SFX, mozilla.org (content vs. technical split?). Do we need to separate policy creation and implementation? | Issue: Do we need any more Activities modules? Who might own them? We should work out what makes a good module, and who makes a good module owner. Possible examples: SFX, mozilla.org (content vs. technical split?). Do we need to separate policy creation and implementation? | ||
| Line 69: | Line 71: | ||
So Far: A call for ideas was issued; the following proposals were made: [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/3594d1e366ed64c5 Websites] (David Boswell), [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/fc99b634c1c0b628 Education] (Gervase Markham). Other suggestions that have been made in the past include "Events and Speaking", "AMO", "Mozilla Style Guide", "Transparency". | So Far: A call for ideas was issued; the following proposals were made: [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/3594d1e366ed64c5 Websites] (David Boswell), [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/fc99b634c1c0b628 Education] (Gervase Markham). Other suggestions that have been made in the past include "Events and Speaking", "AMO", "Mozilla Style Guide", "Transparency". | ||
Next Steps: Mitchell to propose a | Next Steps: Mitchell to propose a module for Community Metrics. | ||
==On Hold== | ==On Hold== | ||
===Module Owners List=== | ===Improve Module Owners List=== | ||
Issue: it's often out of date, because it's maintained through despot, which takes a lot of work. We would like to make it hackable, parseable, easier to maintain and therefore more accurate. | Issue: it's often out of date, because it's maintained through despot, which takes a lot of work. We would like to make it hackable, parseable, easier to maintain and therefore more accurate. | ||
| Line 83: | Line 85: | ||
Next Steps: reconsider objections raised. Try and get consensus on switching list format. (dmose very much in favour.) | Next Steps: reconsider objections raised. Try and get consensus on switching list format. (dmose very much in favour.) | ||
===Stale Reviews=== | ===Triage Stale Reviews=== | ||
Issue: Review requests remain open and unloved in Bugzilla. This is bad for the (often new) contributors who make patches and see them ignored. Fixing the Module Owners List and mapping it to Bugzilla components allows us to nag module owners about their reviews - cancel, do or delegate. | Issue: Review requests remain open and unloved in Bugzilla. This is bad for the (often new) contributors who make patches and see them ignored. Fixing the Module Owners List and mapping it to Bugzilla components allows us to nag module owners about their reviews - cancel, do or delegate. | ||
| Line 91: | Line 93: | ||
Next Steps: blocked on above. Then add mapping to list, and write nagging scripts. | Next Steps: blocked on above. Then add mapping to list, and write nagging scripts. | ||
===Discussion Forums=== | ===Discussion Forums Technical Refresh=== | ||
There are several issues with the current technical implementation - the unresponsiveness of Google re: Google Groups and so on. Need to look at whether to take the web interface part back in house, and/or put in place other anti-spam measures. | There are several issues with the current technical implementation - the unresponsiveness of Google re: Google Groups and so on. Need to look at whether to take the web interface part back in house, and/or put in place other anti-spam measures. | ||
| Line 109: | Line 111: | ||
==Proposed== | ==Proposed== | ||
===Bugzilla Workflow=== | ===Change Bugzilla Workflow=== | ||
Issue: the current Bugzilla workflow may not be optimal for the Mozilla project. Now that it's configurable in Bugzilla, we could have a discussion about what is best, implement it in the software, and educate the community to use the new workflow. | Issue: the current Bugzilla workflow may not be optimal for the Mozilla project. Now that it's configurable in Bugzilla, we could have a discussion about what is best, implement it in the software, and educate the community to use the new workflow. | ||
| Line 119: | Line 121: | ||
==Resolved== | ==Resolved== | ||
===Super-Review Policy=== | ===Update Super-Review Policy=== | ||
Issue: super-review policy is out of date. mconnor is updating it. | Issue: super-review policy is out of date. mconnor is updating it. | ||